Ski,You've pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter.As far as the re-election issue this may explain why many of the founders weren't so keen on the average citizen having so much power (explains the electoral college and the fact senators weren't directly elected until the progressive era). Also it is after all the right of the people to elect whomever serves them best and none can argue the folks named don't serve their backers.  😉 Too bad their backers are sheeple only looking at what they will be given.If one reads Liberal Fascism much will become clear about how we've gotten to the current point. While the title seems a an oxymoron it's not; the socialism and social engineering is the key to understanding.HF... this might be worth your time, a good read. So, too, might the Constitution itself (if you consider Jefferson and his point of view).

PM sent.

Agreed.

Both points seem to have merit… slow economy makes the military attractive. Witness the Age of Exploration… if the oldest son got the ranch, money, and title, the younger sibs had to find something else… often the military for various opportunities for fame, glory, and wealth (or at least security… upon completion of service).So too, folks with a violent (or violence tolerant) streak (and that are basically lawful individuals) might look for an acceptable ways to express this... the military or law enforcement come to mind.This is not to say that all folks in these professions are raging sociopaths, but merely, to indicate folks that are more tolerant of force as an option to positive ends might find these roles suitable for them.

....So my question is:  Should we accept or rebuke our current politcal infastructure?  If yes, why?  And, if no, why?

Not the structure but the players... re-elect no one; nor the spouses of past officers.

….... mercantilism described there sounds quite a bit like your basic free enterprise, capitalist system - at least to a degree.  Where it parts most, however, is in the strict control of imports.  Having such a favorable trade balance will, in fact, lead to a greater concentration of financial resources; whether or not it creates greater wealth is another story.  ....... the outflow of cash/bullion is what mercantilist countries want to avoid.

This is the gold part of the old God, Gold, and Glory plan of colonization... more about exploitation than capitalization, methinks. One of the reasons the Brits didn't fight any harder to keep US was that we produced little that they couldn't get elsewhere with less muss and fuss. So too, we were beginning to compete with them by producing things locally that they had been supplying to US  😮As for Spain; getting the Jews and Muslims out worked to tear down their economic machine... when the small businessmen and the agricultural experts (w/regard to irrigation of semi-arid areas) were banished all that bullion had to be spent on imports; opps! :-

... English radical Whigs were also pushing for reforms (e.g. broader voting rights) and were pointing to the American and French Revolutions as to how reform was possible.  So there are influences with these major events across the oceans.

Indeed but please consider that the Am-Rev was less a revolution than an evolution (and perhpas the 1st Civil War) since those that were in charge before... were the leaders of the revolution and then the makers of the US gov't. after defeating those that would have remained part of England.As for the Fr-Rev... it was a complete and total tearing down and restructuring of the society for better or worse. Few if any wanted to go there... hence the Congress of Vienna after Nappy bites the dust.